Why did she stay with Bill?
any woman in sight
By SALLY BEDELL SMITH - More by this author » Last updated at 23:03pm on 15th January 2008

Comments Comments (9)
Bill seduced any woman in sight - but let HER run the White House. She paid him back with explosions of foul-mouthed rage. As Hillary fights for power in her own right, a new book reveals the brutal truth about her marriage...

One evening in the winter of 1998, Bill and Hillary Clinton invited a small group of friends to watch a movie in the White House screening-room.

It was the first time they had surfaced socially after weeks of headlines about a 24-year-old intern called Monica Lewinsky.

Five days after the story had broken on January 21, Bill Clinton had stood before the TV cameras, wagged his finger, and emphatically denied having sexual relations with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

The next day, Hillary had blamed the accusations on a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" against her and her husband.

Since then, both Clintons had maintained silence on the even as lurid and specific details of Bill's affair with Lewinsky continued to emerge.

Scroll down for more ...
Bill and Hillary Clinton

Power couple: Although their marriage has been dogged by Bill's extramarital activities, they remain committed in their pursuit of political power

Now, though, they were settled in their large armchairs, ready for a welcome respite. And the film - a comedy called Something To Talk About, starring Julia Roberts and Dennis Quaid - began promisingly enough, with scenes of domestic bliss involving a successful couple called Grace and Eddie and their adorable preteen daughter, Caroline.

When the lights came up in the White House Family Theatre, Bill and Hillary were completely silent, recalled Mary Mel French, a friend whose own marriage had ended in a bruising divorce a few years earlier.

"We all wanted to slide under our chairs. Nobody said anything as we all got up to leave. I happened to be next to Hillary when we were walking out.

"She whispered to me: 'I'll tell you what. We should have that concoction. You should mix it up first and give me a portion.'

"We burst out laughing and couldn't stop."

Scroll down for more ...
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Hillary won the New Hampshire primary this week, beating rival Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton's ability to laugh at such a moment of peril for her marriage - and her husband's presidency - not only signalled an awareness of her husband's philandering but showed "she was trying to make the best of a lot of things," recalled French.

It was a tantalising glimpse into a relationship that has fascinated and mystified the world. Their marriage has been dogged by Bill's tomcat tendencies since before they exchanged vows in 1975.

In Arkansas, where he was governor, his extramarital activities nearly broke the marriage twice.

Hamilton Jordan, then a prominent Democratic party worker, recalled that when Bill lost his first re-election for governor in 1980 he sought consolation by "recklessly chasing women."

In 1981, when their daughter Chelsea was a year old, a friend overheard Bill singing her a lullaby: "I want a div-or-or-or-orce. I want a div-ororor-orce."

And Bill's former chief of staff Betsey Wright said the couple again came close to separating later that decade.

If the Clintons had divorced, they would have been more fathomable. Instead, as Mary Mel French noted: "The Clintons are complicated because they stayed together."

The intriguing question, as Hillary battles on in her own quest for the presidency, is why she has chosen again and again to give her "Hound Dog" another chance.

Sixteen years ago this month, just as Bill was facing his first presidential primaries, a woman called Connie Hamzy told Penthouse magazine that he had propositioned her in a hotel lobby. He acknowledged that he knew her, but denied any impropriety.

Hillary's reaction was chillingly succinct: "We have to destroy her story."

Connie Hamzy faded away, only to be replaced by a queue of other women claiming sexual relationships with Bill.

And throughout it all his wife stayed at his side, apparently supporting his denials and usually helping him try to silence or rebut the stories of women who claimed anything from sexual harassment and assault to 12-year affairs.

Take the time a supermarket tabloid named no fewer than five mistresses, including a nightclub singer, Gennifer Flowers

When the story broke, Hillary was campaigning elsewhere, so Bill called her to warn her.

After the conversation, according to one report, "there was no scorn or sense of betrayal in her voice; she had long since accepted her husband's past and focused on winning a political future that would reward them both."

Indeed, Hillary gave a TV interview in which she said her husband's dealings with Flowers had an entirely innocent explanation: "Anybody who knows my husband knows that he bends over backwards to help people who are in trouble and is always willing to listen to their problems." American reporters promptly backed off.

Much later, Bill finally admitted under oath that he had indeed been involved sexually with Flowers - "a relationship that I should not have had."

Did Hillary know this at the time the scandal erupted? If so, she gave no sign.

Like her husband, she took offence whenever anyone publicly doubted her word. But after the Flowers episode, she secretly worked with New York lawyer Susan Thomases and Wright to contain any more "bimbo eruptions."

Subsequently, Jack Palladino, a San Francisco private detective, was secretly paid $100,000 to dig up dirt on a number of women who were likely to be trouble.

The idea was that, out of fear of exposure of their private lives, they would be convinced to sign affidavits denying they had been sexually involved with Bill.

"The Clintons were saying: 'This is the only way to fight them,'" said Arkansas lawyer Webster Hubbell, who helped the search.

"Anyone who criticised the Clintons, we wanted to know what was in their background and what might be in their closet. It was: 'Who did she sleep with and who were her boyfriends?'"

These were tough tactics. But whether or not the Clintons love each other in the way of most happily married couples, there is no doubt about their commitment to the pursuit of political power.

In fact, for more than three decades this is what has bound them together when other aspects of their lives showed signs of crumbling.

In some ways, they remain an unlikely couple: the earnest Methodist overachiever who freely acknowledges "I don't do spontaneity" and the instinctively affable and loquacious charmer who makes everything look easy.

Hillary considers Bill a "force of nature." Yet nearly everything about him is contradicted by something else. His wide-ranging intellect can be overridden by lapses in everyday common sense. He is by turns empathetic and self-absorbed, focused and un-disciplined, cerebral and priapic, idealistic and cynical, honest and evasive, inspiring and mortifying.

Above all, he is intuitive. "He was capable of constant emotional scans of everyone in the room while he was thinking," recalled one close Clinton associate.

"He could recognise, quantify and calibrate a response to the emotional state of the person with him."

Yet another side of him was classic alpha male, supremely self-confident and tough, and capable of a fearsome temper.

Political consultant James Carville warned against being misled by Bill's "quarter-inch of softness. You'll break your finger if you mistake that for going all the way through."

The downside of Bill's magnetism was his compulsive need to seduce. He even made several plays for Laura Tyson, the high-powered chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers.

"Once we were talking about an article I had written," Tyson recalled, "and he said: 'You should come over and show me your article.' I thought: 'This is bizarre. So I said: "I'll just send it over.'"

Another time at a White House dinner he commented on her alluring evening gown, saying "You'd better not wear that to work," to which she replied: "Of course I'll never wear this to work."

Said Tyson later: "It is pretty good protection if you don't let on any sign that this [kind of pass] is happening. It will go away."

Others readily succumbed to Bill's charms.

With her cool manner and formidable will, Hillary had to work harder to win people over. Her extreme earnestness has earned comparisons to a school monitor and a member of the Salvation Army.

Many men were put off by her give-no-quarter nature. In the words of one opinion poll guru: "She reminds most men of their first wife - or mother-inlaw."

Hillary is as unsentimental as Bill is mushy. She once wrote to a friend: "Unthinking emotion is pitiful to me."

When Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - widow of President John F. Kennedy - sent a cheque to Bill's presidential campaign in 1992, he immediately said: "We can't cash this." Hillary's reply: "Make a copy and then cash it."

Said Ann McCoy, a friend from Arkansas: "You get a hug from Bill and a solution from Hillary."

Her powers of concentration and rigorous self-discipline are legendary. "You can see her sometimes almost censoring the first and second and third thing that comes into her head," said her longtime friend Diane Blair.

Even Hillary has acknowledged having an "obsessive personality."

Her husband noted in the second year of his presidency, with a wave toward his large Oval Office desk: "I might as well try to lift that desk up and throw it through the window as to change her mind."

Nor does Hillary ever feel compelled to explain her certainties - or much else about her thoughts and emotions. This defiantly closed nature has fuelled a perception that she was withholding information during numerous official investigations into the Clintons' affairs.

In fact, playing the role of "hidden hand" is one she enjoys.

"She was extremely Machiavellian, a master of doing things that could not be traced back to her," recalled one close colleague. "She would say: 'Do this, but don't leave any fingerprints.'"

Hillary's own mother once observed: "She just does everything she has to do to get along and get ahead."

This includes gritting her teeth about Bill's compulsive womanising. Her patience has its limits, however, and in 1989 Bill sought professional help for what friends called his "problem."

"I thought he had conquered it," Hillary said a decade later. "I thought he understood it, but he didn't go deep enough or work hard enough."

Hillary herself has been dogged by rumours that she is a lesbian, dating back to Bill's days as Arkansas Governor. These have been based mainly on her assertive manner, her lack of interest in her appearance, her indifference to flirting, her husband's chronic infidelity and her large entourage of women staffers.

But there has never been any evidence of sexual involvement with another woman - or, indeed, another man. Politics is what counts.

When she and Bill learned that they had won the presidency in 1992, their first reaction was to laugh. Hillary told a friend that the victory was "like the dog that keeps chasing the car and all of a sudden catches it."

Bill, however, was not solely focused on his electoral triumph. On the day that they were due to leave Little Rock, Arkansas, he made a private farewell - the sort of risky encounter that was later to imperil his presidency.

At 5.15 am that Saturday, he was visited in the basement office of the governor's mansion by Marilyn Jo Jenkins, an energy-company executive.

State troopers who worked for him later made sworn statements that he and Jenkins had been seeing each other since the late 1980s.

Trooper Danny Ferguson testified that he had escorted Jenkins to see Bill four times in the days before the Clintons left Little Rock. Bill had also phoned her frequently in the preceding years, with one call - at 1.23am from a hotel in Virginia - lasting 94 minutes.

Predictably, both Jenkins and Bill denied they had a sexual relationship, and she claimed that he had only been helping her through a "personal crisis."

But he ultimately admitted that he had been to her apartment ten times, and his lawyer, Robert Bennett, later noticed that he had a "forlorn and wistful" look when he talked about her.

Jenkins, it seems, was the focus of one of the crises that nearly ended the Clinton marriage.

However, as the Clintons' bus neared Washington DC, Bill was clearly able to put her out of his mind. Indeed, according to witnesses, the First Couple - then aged 46 and 45 - retired to the rear of the bus and "canoodled."

These moments of physical contact were companionable rather than passionate, and reflected Bill and Hillary's mastery of what White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry later called "the science of how they interacted publicly" - the well-practised whisper, the peck on the forehead even in periods of terrible tension.

It was a skill in which Hillary revelled. On January 21, 1993, Bill's first full day in office, she and Bill shook some 1,800 hands in three hours.

"We just screwed all these people," she whispered to her husband - a comment heard on network television.

Once they were installed in the White House, Bill gave his wife primacy even above his Vice-President, Al Gore - a formidable politician with far greater experience - even though, as his unelected spouse, she was barred by law from holding office.

She had eight friends - including former colleagues and school and university pals - in positions of power, while the Vice-President had just one.

Hillary and Bill were setting out to run the White House as one working unit: "Billary," as they had been known back in Arkansas.

It was a kind of compensation for Bill's extra-marital betrayals. As a senior official said: "The loss of gratification or dignity or fulfilment of one aspect of their relationship - marital fidelity - made him give her gratification, dignity and fulfilment in another."

But although Hillary was willing to accept what was in effect a copresidency, she didn't necessarily accept that it gave Bill the right to continue his seductions.

This, said the aide, "explains the continuing high level of anger on her part - her resentment seething beneath the surface."

From the start of their reign, the Clintons' temperamental differences and the tensions in their marriage intruded on policy, politics and personnel.

The staff in Arkansas had become inured to Bill and Hillary's fierce arguing, but their Washington advisers found it "demoralising," according to adviser David Gergen.

When the Clintons "got into a row... the rest of us sat in embarrassed silence."

The most unnerving aspect of the Clintons' altercations was their use of profanity, especially "f***" and "s***" - particularly shocking in Hillary's case because of her slightly pious air.

"She can swear like a trooper," said one of her friends.

When a White House aide forgot a podium for an event in the White House Rose Garden in May 1993, everyone was taken aback when Hillary yelled at Bill: "What the f*** goes on here! What is your staff doing?"

Bill could also turn irritable. His profanity-fortified rages - "cusswords for five minutes," said Abner Mikva, a White House counsel - were legendary.

These "purple fits," as the staff called them, were invariably disproportionate to the offence that triggered them.

Given the fraught climate, no one was particularly surprised when a report surfaced that during a heated dispute between Bill and Hillary, a lamp had been smashed.

The anecdote came from the Secret Service, whose agents were posted within earshot of the family's living quarters on the second floor.

The story rapidly transmuted into a claim that Hillary had actually "thrown a lamp" at her husband - an assertion she publicly denied. But she never directly addressed what had gone on, and her private reaction showed frantic concern.

"Hillary said: 'We have a lot of enemies and we have to fight back,'" White House counsel Bernie Nussbaum recalled.

"She became more hardened. We found we couldn't trust a lot of people like the Secret Service and the staff, leaking rumours about Hillary-and-Bill fights."

At Hillary's request, a new team of agents was installed and they switched their posts from the second floor to outside the elevators downstairs.

In this, as in other respects, her word was law. "There is a saying," said one top administration official, "If Mama's not happy, nobody is happy."

The joint decision-making at the top was so overt that staff members called Hillary "The Supreme Court." Whenever Bill said "let me think about it," aides knew he intended to call Hillary.

White House counsel Abner Mikva said that Bill could act "like a baby" around his wife, calling her "Hirree."

Such was the balance of power in the relationship that it was the President of the United States who usually ended up helping their 12-year-old daughter Chelsea with her homework.

Once, he told a morning meeting: "I was up late, working on the Mesopotamians."

He did not hesitate to tap the resources at hand to help him out. The White House economics team assisted with some algebra problems, while the communications director had to find some border guards to give Chelsea information for an immigration project.

Significantly, when the nurse at Chelsea's school needed to get permission to dispense an aspirin, the First Daughter said: "Call my dad. My mom's too busy." The nurse did in fact reach the President easily, and he was only too eager to remain on the phone for a chat.

Meanwhile, Hillary's routine participation in West Wing meetings was upsetting the equilibrium of official White House life. She "had a real chilling effect," said one long-time aide.

White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum observed that Bill "would try to avoid fighting with her if he could, deflecting her if he could. It was not easy. She would say: 'Do this or that.' He would then be more careful."

Often, Bill would arrive at the Oval Office feeling buoyant, "almost whistling as he whipped through papers," recalled adviser David Gergen. Then the phone would ring and Hillary would be on the line.

"His mood would darken," wrote Gergen, "his attention wander, and hot words would spew out. Had we seen the outrageous things his enemies were saying about him now? Why was his staff screwing him again? What,I would wonder, had she said to him now?"

Even more disconcerting were Bill's evening phone calls - what Communications Director George Stephanopoulos called the "nightcap" - when Bill would chew out an adviser while Hillary was nearby.

"It was completely at odds with the emotional tenor of the relationship that person had with Bill," said one top official.

"It was vicious. When she walked out of the room, everything changed. Then the tone would change completely and he would say: 'Why don't you come over and watch football?'"

In meetings, Hillary's dissatisfaction could curdle the atmosphere when she directed her ire at his subordinates. "It was her way of saying to Bill: 'You are incompetent. Look at how your staff treats you,'" said White House adviser Robert Boorstin.

"Rather than insult Bill directly, she used the staff. People were scared of her because they knew she could chop off their testicles if she so chose. You did not cross Hillary."

Adviser David Gergen described how, with a dozen or so of her husband's aides gathered round, Hillary would let loose a tirade. "She would launch a deadly missile straight at [Bill's] heart and just before it hit, the missile would explode, the shrapnel hitting the staff."

Her vocabulary had a common theme: that the President's men were "wimps." Recalled one aide: "It was: 'You don't have balls, no guts.' The language was so striking. It seemed that every criticism was dual purpose and could apply to him, but at the last minute she didn't apply it to him."

Bill would react by flushing crimson and lashing out at his staff. "She knew how to press his buttons," said the senior official. "It was a conscious pattern."

Later, as the extent of Hillary's power in the White House became known, former President Richard Nixon was moved to observe: "Hillary pounds the piano so hard that Bill can't be heard."

Vice-President Al Gore was the biggest victim. It was a given in the White House that Hillary had to "sign off on big decisions," and even before Clinton's inauguration, her adviser Susan Thomases was quoted saying that Gore "would have to adjust to a smaller role."

The effect was to add a new layer of intrigue and rivalry to the West Wing, where advisers and cabinet officers knew they could lobby either the First Lady or the Vice-President to reverse decisions by the President.

David Gergen called the "threeheaded system" a "rolling disaster."

"Of course there were tensions," said one of the Clintons' longtime friends, who recalled private meetings in which Hillary encouraged her husband to discount Gore's advice.

It was an open secret that some of Hillary's advisers nurtured dreams that she, not Gore, would follow Bill in the presidency.

Throughout the day, Hillary was invariably on the move, striding from one office to another, holding a yellow legal pad and sheaves of notes and documents, and wearing thick bifocals and no make-up.

But her political touch was by no means as sure as her husband's.

She insisted on producing a complicated plan for sweeping health reforms that would guarantee medical insurance for all, but refused to consult experts who didn't already agree with her.

Her figures were dismissed as mindbogglingly unrealistic - and even Bill, after studying the plan in detail, said: "My brain aches."

During a trip to Massachusetts, he dared to suggest that the reforms might be watered down. Back in Washington, Hillary reacted with fury. An aide recalled how she picked up the phone and told the White House operator: "Get me the President."

Moments later, Bill came on the line. "What the f*** are you doing up there?" she screamed. "I want to see you as soon as you get back."

Her tone was as "hard-edged" as her advisers had ever heard. Several hours later, Bill arrived by helicopter and walked into the Diplomatic Reception Room, where an aide was waiting to escort him upstairs.

The next day, he publicly retracted his comments and even apologised, promising that he aimed to implement the reforms in full. Even so, it was only a matter of time before Hillary's hugely unpopular plan was ignominiously dumped.

Her response? To blame a "conspiracy" - this time in the medical profession.

It was the same language she used against the mistresses who lined up to accuse her husband. But as we will see on Monday, those accusers were proving impossible to silence.

•Extracted from The Clintons At The White House by Sally Bedell Smith, to be published by Aurum Press on February 4 at £25.

What comment are you looking for? Bill is a womanizer...that's well known. Hillary is a strong person, who has managed to keep her marriage together despite all this. And I think anybody seeking the Presidency has goals, seeks power, etc.
That article belongs in the National Enquirer ...it tells me nothing about how good a President Hillary will make...and Bill's Presidency is already on record.
What if I told you that GWB likes to wear woman's underwear, or likes to do it "doggie style"? Would that change your mind about the war?
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD

01-21-2008, 06:13 PM

Despite numerous errors and flaws, Sally Bedell Smith book on Clintons largely escaped factual scrutiny
Summary: Sally Bedell Smith's book For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years has largely escaped factual scrutiny, although Smith has appeared on several network and cable news programs to publicize the book. Media Matters has identified several errors and flaws in Smith's book.

Author Sally Bedell Smith, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair who has previously written books on the Kennedy White House and Princess Diana, has received media attention for her book For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years (Random House, October 2007). Smith has appeared on NBC's Meet the Press (October 21) and Today (October 19), MSNBC's Hardball (October 26), and Fox News' Hannity &amp; Colmes (October 26) and The Big Story (November 1), but her book has largely escaped factual scrutiny. Most recently, on December 11, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Smith on the prospect of "Two Presidents in the White House[]" -- the headline of the piece -- if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] is elected president. In the op-ed, Smith wrote: "[G]iven the Clintons' long history of close consultation, their partnership could end up distorting the way the executive branch is supposed to function -- regardless of the talents each of them might bring to the White House." Below are several errors and flaws in Smith's book that have been identified by Media Matters for America.

1. John Podesta: On Page 301, Smith quotes then-White House chief of staff John Podesta quoting Bill Clinton as saying of Monica Lewinsky, "I did not screw that girl" and "she did not blow me." Smith's endnotes claim these quotes come from "Grand-jury testimony of John Podesta, June 16, 1998, vol. 3, p. 3311." That testimony is available here -- but it doesn't contain anything like the quotes Smith attributes to Podesta.

2. Minimum wage: On Page 254, Smith claims that "the President made no mention of the new minimum wage law" in his 1996 convention speech. This is false. During that speech, Bill Clinton bragged about "[t]en million workers getting the raise they deserve with the minimum wage law."

3. Webster Hubbell: On Page 255, Smith writes about a March 25, 1996, telephone conversation between former associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell and his wife, Suzy:

Suzy told her husband that White House aide Marsha Scott, another old friend from Little Rock, had warned he would receive no "public support" if he were to "open up Hillary to all this." "I'm hearing the squeeze play," Suzy added.

Replied Webb, "So I need to roll over one more time." When Suzy asked whether overbilling was "an area where Hillary would be vulnerable," Webb cautioned her, "We're on a recorded phone." Talking to Scott the same day, Hubbell said, "There are issues that I have to stay away from to protect others, and I will."

Smith's description of the phone calls mirrors the selectively edited excerpts released by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Dan Burton's (R-IN) staff. Burton's chief investigator, David Bossie, lost his job over the controversy that ensued after it was revealed that the edited transcripts omitted exculpatory comments, such as Webster Hubbell's statement that Hillary Clinton "just had no idea what was going on. She didn't participate in any of this."

4. Haircut myth: On Page 101, Smith writes, "Bill was caught by White House reporters holding up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport for forty-five minutes while he got a two-hundred-dollar haircut on Air Force One from ... Hollywood stylist, Christophe Schatteman." In fact, Clinton's haircut did not delay air traffic. In an endnote, Smith appears to cite several sources for her false claim, including Page 144 of All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos. But in fact, Stephanopoulos writes on that page: "The truth is that while the reporters traveling with the president were delayed, no other air traffic at LAX was affected."

5. Trouble with quotes: According to a New York Times book review by New York magazine contributor Lloyd Grove, Smith "also gets a few nuances slightly wrong -- for example, crediting Hillary's confidante Susan Thomases with coining the epithet 'white boys,' [Page 65] which, by the time Thomases used it to deride her male counterparts in the 1992 campaign, had been in circulation for several election cycles. Smith misstates what she calls 'the second-most famous quotation' of the Clinton presidency as 'It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" means,' [Page 337] substituting 'means' for 'is.' " Additionally, Smith substituted "upon" for "on" -- meaning that she got wrong two of the 11 words in what she described as the "second-most famous quotation" of Clinton's presidency.

6. Gennifer Flowers: On Page 295, Smith claims that during his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Bill Clinton "admitted sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers." She repeats the claim that Clinton "confirm[ed]" that he had "sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers" on Page 325. In fact, during the deposition, Clinton admitted only to having had "sexual relations" with Flowers once in 1977. Under the definition of "sexual relations" that was in effect for the deposition -- a definition that had been created by the Jones attorneys, not by Clinton -- the phrase included a wide range of actions that do not constitute "sexual intercourse," including "contact with the ... inner thigh." Smith knew how broad the definition was; she actually quotes it on Page 295 in the very paragraph in which she falsely claimed Clinton had admitted to "sexual intercourse."

7. Al Gore: On Page 386, Smith claims that, prior to his June 1999 presidential campaign announcement, then-Vice President Al Gore "had expressed his dismay about Bill's conduct to a small circle of advisors but had kept quiet publicly." This is false. Smith cites a 1999 Washington Post article by Ceci Connolly, but much of Connolly's reporting about Gore was wrong. Gore had publicly expressed his dismay about the president's conduct on numerous occasions. Indeed, Connolly herself wrote a September 1998 article that quoted Gore describing Clinton's conduct as "indefensible." On his blog The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby has explained this falsehood in detail.

8. Harold Ickes: On Page 390, Smith writes that Hillary Clinton "thought it best to keep Bill away from the event" kicking off her Senate campaign at then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Pat Moynihan's (D-NY) farm, "but somewhat surprisingly she also excluded Harold Ickes because he was 'too liberal.' " The confusing nature of Smith's endnotes make it difficult to determine which citation applies to this claim; either "NYT, July 8, 1999; LH, p. 507" or "NYT, Nov. 8, 2000." What is clear is that no New York Times article from July 8, 1999, or November 8, 2000, includes a description of Ickes as having been "too liberal" to attend the event. Nor does Hillary Clinton's biography, Living History.

The Vanity Fair article, which is reprinted in the book The Woman At the Washington Zoo by Marjorie Williams and Timothy Noah, simply states that "political reporters discovered that Wolf had been handsomely paid to advise Gore that he needed to ... adopt warm earth tones for his wardrobe."

There is no November 3, 1999, New York Times article that makes reference to Gore, Wolf, and "earth tones." That day, the Times did publish a column by Maureen Dowd that did so. Dowd wrote: "Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf, who has written extensively on women and sexual power, as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton." Dowd simply wasn't telling the truth: The Time magazine article she described did not contain the words "earth tones." In a correction to a later article, the Times acknowledged that Wolf "was a consultant on women's issues and outreach to young voters; she was not Mr. Gore's image consultant and was not involved in his decision to wear earth-toned clothing."

Curiously, Smith did not cite the first news report that mentioned Gore, Wolf, and "earth tones" -- a November 1, 1999, Washington Post article in which Connolly wrote that Dick "Morris speculated that Wolf, who has long contended that earth tones are more 'reassuring' to audiences, is the person behind Gore's recent wardrobe change. Others confirmed that she has supported the vice president's shift to brown, olive green and tan shades."

That is the totality of the "evidence" that Naomi Wolf advised Al Gore to wear earth tones -- Ceci Connolly's paraphrase of Dick Morris' speculation, and her assertion that unspecified "[o]thers" confirmed that speculation.

In short: Smith's endnotes indicate that she based her claim on 1) a Vanity Fair article that contains no independent verification of the earth tones story and 2) a New York Times article that was really a Maureen Dowd column that falsely claimed that Time magazine had reported the earth tones story. Had Smith quoted the first news report that actually mentioned earth tones, readers would have seen that the whole story was based on nothing more than Dick Morris' speculation.

10. Travelgate: On Page 101, Smith claims, regarding the firing of White House Travel Office employees, that the "precipitous and amateurish dismissals [of the employees] became a damaging test of Hillary's honesty under oath before federal investigators." Smith continues: "She [Hillary Clinton] insisted that she did not know the 'origin of the decision' to remove the employees, that she had 'no role in the decision,' and that she 'did not direct that any action be taken.' But her recollection was a at odds with a report issued in October 2000 after a lengthy investigation by the Office of the Independent Counsel, which concluded that her statements had been 'factually false' and that there was 'overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees.' " However, Smith failed to note that Independent Counsel Robert Ray's report also stated, "[T]here is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false." From Ray's report:

With respect to Mrs. Clinton, the overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision to [former White House aide David] Watkins, [former White House chief of staff Thomas F. "Mack"] McLarty, [former deputy White House counsel Vince] Foster, and [Clinton friend Harry] Thomason. Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath to this Office was factually false. The evidence, however, is insufficient to show that Mrs. Clinton knowingly intended to influence the Travel Office decision or was aware that she had such influence at this early stage of the Administration. To a real degree, her interest in the matter was first generated by Thomason's intervention, and then overstated by him to others. Thus, absent persuasive, corroborated, and admissible evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false.

bamadog

01-21-2008, 08:38 PM

Looks like a couple of smart, power hungry people in an un-loving marriage. Really, very sad. President Nixon told the story about what he saw of that relationship when he was invited to the White House by the Clintons. Very interesting.

Drop1

01-21-2008, 10:05 PM

I would think you had him confused with J.Edger Hoover. Can you imagine good ol Hoover,at the kitchen table wearing his black hose,and garters,with a push up bra to match,listing the deviate enemies of America?

LWW

01-22-2008, 05:23 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Looks like a couple of smart, power hungry people in an un-loving marriage. Really, very sad. President Nixon told the story about what he saw of that relationship when he was invited to the White House by the Clintons. Very interesting. <hr /></blockquote>
Got a link to that account.

I know Gary Aldrich told some scary tales.

LWW

Deeman3

01-22-2008, 09:08 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> What comment are you looking for? Bill is a womanizer...that's well known. Hillary is a strong person, who has managed to keep her marriage together despite all this. And I think anybody seeking the Presidency has goals, seeks power, etc. <font color="blue"> </font color> If people who stayed together for reasons other than love were a diqualifer for public office, about half our elected officials would not be there. I don't hold his indiscretions nor her reactions as pertinent to the election.
That article belongs in the National Enquirer ...it tells me nothing about how good a President Hillary will make...and Bill's Presidency is already on record.
What if I told you that GWB likes to wear woman's underwear, or likes to do it "doggie style"? Would that change your mind about the war?
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Not about the war but certainly about his character. Of course, what's wrong with Doggy Style? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

In the end, as you say, how will she be as president? My take, even though I don't like nor trust her, is that she might be a better alternative than the other democratic candidates. I believe she is so pragmatic that she may very well play a more populist president than most would guess and, therefore, double cross the very people who will end up electing her. Her only goal will be re-election and she will be so devisive that she can claim no one will work to get her social programs passed. This will be better than an Obama who just might have the charisma to get a very left agenda through. No, I'm not switching over to the dark side but believe she is not going to be able to make real change but will be quite satisfied with the status quo as long as she has the office. So much so that I would vote for her in the primary over Obama and Edwards which I can do in our primary.

I am a part of the vast right wing conspiracy who have had our hearts broken by the hald wrong, half right administration where they took a brave stand on terror and a weak approach on fiscal values.

The republican candidates reflect the disaray in the party, Rudy is too liberal for most, Huchabee is a good man but can't win the general and Mitt, whom I like, probably won't be able to weather the Clinton attacks as Obama is finding out now. Obama is a good man, too liberal for me, but has not clue at how to oppose the Clinton attack machine.

At least, if we get Clinton it will be business as usual in terms of influence buying and she is the only Democrat who will not oppose the military industrial complex. I think most, even on here, are not so much looking for change as looking for something other than Bush. If he/she is Bush light, at least they will be happy for a couple of years while we have a much more exciting media opportunity coming from the White House. Face it, it's now a Britany Spears world and entertainment will at least get better out of the West Wing.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Of course, any one who will not vote for her simply because she is a woman is an idiot.</font color>

DickLeonard

01-22-2008, 10:33 AM

Pooltchr really who cares everybody has two faces,some have three and four.

Nobody says much about Laura Bush's open manslaughter/murder case. Where she ran the stop sign and into her ex boyfriend killing him, with in a month after his breaking up with her.

Accidents just really happen, don't they.####

pooltchr

01-22-2008, 10:48 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr really who cares everybody has two faces,some have three and four.
<font color="red"> That's a good attitude. Who cares? It's only for the PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY! </font color>

Nobody says much about Laura Bush's open manslaughter/murder case. Where she ran the stop sign and into her ex boyfriend killing him, with in a month after his breaking up with her.
<font color="red"> Laura isn't running for President...Hillary is!!! </font color>

Accidents just really happen, don't they.#### <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> I think this paints a pretty clear picture of the type of person Hillary really is. I'm not sure I want this kind of personality in the person with their finger on the button. I know you hate GW...but do you really think this would be an improvement??????????
Steve </font color>

SpiderMan

01-22-2008, 10:58 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Her only goal will be re-election and she will be so devisive that she can claim no one will work to get her social programs passed. This will be better than an Obama who just might have the charisma to get a very left agenda through. No, I'm not switching over to the dark side <hr /></blockquote>

What an opening for comedic analogy /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

hondo

01-22-2008, 11:00 AM

After 8 years of Bush, I'll take Hilary, Obama, or Edwards.
Do I like them? Not really.
I just can't believe that any of the 3 could POSSIBLY
BE WORSE THAN BUSH!!!
Of the Republicans the only one that seems different
is Ron Paul and there are some things about him that scare me too. McCain scares me to death.

He scares me too! His idology is almost a carbon copy of Hillary and Obama. If you look up RINO in the dictionary, you will probably find his picture.

Steve

LWW

01-22-2008, 06:12 PM

Ditto.

LWW

Gayle in MD

01-25-2008, 09:34 AM

True, Dick,
The right doesn't notice the hypocracy of their own party. That's a no no. King George, just simply refused to answer questions about his insider trading, and his cocaine use, but the massive right wing press, which really is at the heart of many of our problems, just gave Bushy a bye, on everything.

The lesbian accusations came from the right, but that's nothing new, Bush used that same smear tactic against Anne Richards, in Texas.

Truth be told, few politicians remain faithful to their spouses. Such behavior is inherent in the kind of personality that thrives on fame. I don't think, however that applies to women, as pervasively as it does to men. I do believe that women, by their natures, are more nurturing, and have higher goals and higher intentions in their pursuit of political power.

Regardless of the attacks on the Clilnton's, few, (about 28% to be exact) could deny that we were most certainly better off in every way, with the Clintons in the White House, than we are today. Eight millions Americans were able to break out of the jaws of poverty, and many millions more jobs created, not to mention our debt reduction, and the overall economic progress made during Clinton's tenure as president. We surely won't be hearing about any such strides after we finally get rid of the King, and his comrades in corruption. The last time we had to bail out lending institutions was during the Bush Sr. Administration, and, also the last time we were all being gouged at the gas tanks. Given the loss of median value in homes, the worst since the great depression, we can ;lainly see that unless AMerican has a President who can jump start the JOBS FOR AMERICANS, through re-building our infrastructure, addressing unfair trading practices in the international arena, and doing away with the tax theft produced by Bush, to benefit the billionaires at the top, along with getting out of the complete FUBAR FIASCO in Iraq, which is the biggest drain of all on this country, we can kiss the American dream good-by. Thank You George Bush.

Only Hillary is presently addressing these issues through intelligent discourse. The Republican candidates, are still out there minimizing the disasterous economic results of Bush's War, and trying to make his tax cuts permanent, for their wealthy contributors.

Wonder why not one billionaire, or millionaire, has stepped up to claim the million dollars Warren buffet offered to any of one them who could prove that their secretaries, or receptionists paid less taxes than they did? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard

01-25-2008, 01:33 PM

Pooltchr nobody has more faces than GWB and sadly we had to put up with someone destroying our Constitution because he was given a Blank Check by the Congress.

Now we are dying to bring Democrazy to Iraq. While Democrazy is being destroyed here.####

pooltchr

01-28-2008, 04:30 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Such behavior is inherent in the kind of personality that thrives on fame. I don't think, however that applies to women, as pervasively as it does to men.

<font color="red"> Every time you write something like that, it just shows how sexist you are. It's fine to support a woman if you are a woman, but according to the clintons, when the blacks support a black candidate, that is wrong! I guess whatever fits your agenda at the time.... </font color>

Only Hillary is presently addressing these issues through intelligent discourse. <font color="red"> The only thing I have hear her say is she has 35 years of experience....I'm not quite sure what kind of experience she's talking about... </font color>
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> You might find it interesting that I have determined that it is possible I could vote for the Dem candidate in November. Should the Republicans nominate McCain, my reasoning would be, if the country is going to go to Hell anyway, I would just as soon have an admitted Democrat in the white house as opposed to a Democrat in Republican clothing.
Steve</font color>

SKennedy

01-28-2008, 05:30 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Such behavior is inherent in the kind of personality that thrives on fame. I don't think, however that applies to women, as pervasively as it does to men.

<font color="red"> Every time you write something like that, it just shows how sexist you are. It's fine to support a woman if you are a woman, but according to the clintons, when the blacks support a black candidate, that is wrong! I guess whatever fits your agenda at the time.... </font color>

Only Hillary is presently addressing these issues through intelligent discourse. <font color="red"> The only thing I have hear her say is she has 35 years of experience....I'm not quite sure what kind of experience she's talking about... </font color>
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> You might find it interesting that I have determined that it is possible I could vote for the Dem candidate in November. Should the Republicans nominate McCain, my reasoning would be, if the country is going to go to Hell anyway, I would just as soon have an admitted Democrat in the white house as opposed to a Democrat in Republican clothing.
Steve</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Same here.....I'd vote for Obama over McCain. I know what I've got with Obama.

Sid_Vicious

01-28-2008, 07:54 PM

"I just can't believe that any of the 3 could POSSIBLY
BE WORSE THAN BUSH!!!"

I had a conversation with a friend the other day, he being an avid Clinton hater, all he could state was "Clinton was worse." I stated, "There hasn't been one thing Bush has done that wasn't right! NOT ONE SINGLE THING!" All my friend did in response was say, "Clinton was worse", without even acknowledging Bush's record nor making an attempt to argue a conterpoint as to why Clintn was worse. This glazed-eyed, head in the sand mentality is why Bush still has any approval at all. Clinton was an angel compared to the chimp...sid

Gayle in MD

01-29-2008, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you write something like that, it just shows how sexist you are. <font color="blue">Ha ha ha, you, of all people, throwing around the sexist label, too funny! If you don't think men are more likely to use their power stature as a means to impress women into the bedroom, more so than women do, fine. State your belief. Sexism has nothing to do with my statement. Women who get involved in politics don't usually use their power to get men into bed, it isn't an ego thing with them, they get into it for different reasons. </font color> It's fine to support a woman if you are a woman, but according to the clintons, when the blacks support a black candidate, that is wrong! <font color="blue">The Clinton's never said that. More lies from Steve. </font color> I guess whatever fits your agenda at the time.... <font color="blue">Hey, you're the one that voted for Bush, and then denied reality for seven years. You're the last one who should be yapping about agendas. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I have hear her say is she has 35 years of experience....I'm not quite sure what kind of experience she's talking about...
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">That doesn't surprise me at all. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
You might find it interesting that I have determined that it is possible I could vote for the Dem candidate in November. Should the Republicans nominate McCain, my reasoning would be, if the country is going to go to Hell anyway, I would just as soon have an admitted Democrat in the white house as opposed to a Democrat in Republican clothing.
Steve

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq. McCain is promising them possibly another hundred years there. I wouldn't worry much about McCain getting into the White House. Americans seem to prefer Democratic foreign policies, such as diplomacy, and sanctions, and international coalition of pressure, sticks and carrots, to pre-emptive wars with other countries just so a president can settle a family grudge. Americans don't like sending their kids to die for Bush family grudges, and big oil profits for corporate fascist pigs. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>